The revenue of "Dim Medytsyny" company, part of the Odrex medical brand, in 2025 amounted to UAH 839 million – 24% less than the previous year. Profit decreased even more significantly – by 44% to UAH 73 million. This was reported by UNN with reference to "Opendatabot".
For one of the largest private medical brands in the south of the country, a quarter drop in revenue and almost a twofold decrease in profits are more than indicative. After all, in medicine, money follows "trust," and when revenues fall, it almost always means one thing – patient trust is falling.
The reasons for such a public reaction may be scandals surrounding the clinic. These include 10 criminal proceedings in which Odrex is involved, numerous stories of people who report problems during treatment, and the activities of the StopOdrex movement, which collects and publishes stories of people who consider themselves or their relatives to have suffered from treatment there. The loud resonance around the clinic has even received a name in the media – "The Odrex Case."
And it seems that Odrex understands this, as the clinic is working on its image. However, the methods of this work raise more questions than answers. As UNN previously wrote, the Odrex clinic, in an attempt to "patch up image holes," resorts to unconventional PR methods. Recently, on its social media pages, Odrex published a promotional video featuring surgeon Vitaliy Rusakov. The video tells the story of a seriously ill patient who was brought back to life. But the main character of this story is not the patient; the main focus is on Vitaliy Rusakov, who is shown in the promotional video as a doctor who "saves lives." This is despite the fact that he is accused in a criminal proceeding for improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker, which led to the patient's death. At the same time, the clinic omits this fact of his biography in the advertisement, which may be a sign of a violation of the Ethical Code of the Doctor of Ukraine.
This video is not a know-how of Odrex's PR strategy. After all, at the end of 2025, the clinic had already published similar advertising. In the older video, the method is the same: doctor Vitaliy Rusakov appears in the story of saving a patient as the main "protagonist." Against this background, a simple question arises: is it appropriate to make a doctor, whose medical activities are currently being tried in court, the face of the clinic?
This refers to the criminal proceedings regarding the death of Odesa businessman Adnan Kivan during treatment at the Odrex clinic. In this case, surgeon Vitaliy Rusakov is accused under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker. According to the prosecution, after the surgical intervention, the patient did not receive the necessary antibacterial therapy (antibiotics were not prescribed to him). And there was also no proper reaction to postoperative complications – as a result, the patient developed sepsis, which, according to forensic medical examination, could have caused death.
The case is being heard by the Primorsky District Court of Odesa. The court has already proceeded to the merits, and today, March 23, 2026, another court hearing is scheduled to take place.
And at this very moment, the clinic does not explain the situation and does not answer society's questions. Instead, it shows a glossy picture of "saved lives." This looks not like a restoration of trust, but an attempt to replace it. That is, instead of an open position – a video. Instead of an answer to society's questions – an emotional montage. However, trust in medicine is based not on videos, but on responsibility.
It seems that even state contracts cannot cover this. As UNN previously reported, Odrex remains one of the largest partners of the National Health Service of Ukraine. In 2023 alone, the clinic received over UAH 53 million in budget funding through NHSU programs. And in 2026, it operates under several packages of the medical guarantee program – from primary care to stroke treatment and rehabilitation.
Formally, such cooperation complies with current rules. But the situation itself raises a broader topic for discussion – is it enough for the state to assess only the technical compliance of medical institutions with requirements, if criminal investigations, public patient complaints, and a prolonged public discussion arise around one of the largest partners of the NHSU?